Remember those little marriage icons on Facebook.com, Inc. (FB)? Well the site, which at times has been accused of being intolerant to homosexuality, has stirred up a pot of worms by adding special icons to celebrate the marriage of gay couples.

When one of the network's 900 million users posts that they got hitched, traditionally they were treated with a standard heterosexual male and female cake-topper style icon. Homosexual couples received the same icon, much to their chagrin.

But in the U.S. over the weekend, users began to notice new icons -- two males or two females -- were introduced.

James Lazar, a 38-year-old Chicago man was married (to a man), but had refused to change his status for some time due to the male-female icon. He commented, "I don't like being forced into typical gender roles -- because we aren't. I think it's offensive."

But he eventually bit the bullet and updated his profile to reflect his marriage. And to his surprise and delight shortly thereafter his icon changed to two men. He recalls in a CNNinterview, "I honestly didn't realize it was going to show up in my feed. I have 80,000 people 'liking' it and congratulating me and I'm like, 'Well, it was seven years ago!'"

quote: James Lazar, a 38-year-old Chicago man was married (to a man), but had refused to change his status for some time due to the male-female icon. He commented, "I don't like being forced into typical gender roles -- because we aren't. I think it's offensive."

Rather than change the icon, he should have dressed up more similarly to the silhouette of a woman in protest. Those sexist pictures have always bothered me (not really). My wife has short hair and mostly wears pants. The pictogram system is flawed. I am happy to hear that our gay friends now have emoticons to represent them, but my wife and I are still in the back of the proverbial bus!

I'm sure there are many stable well adjusted homosexuals out there. It's just really a shame every time the media portrays them or interviews them, it's some angry radical militant homosexual. Or one that's WAY too sensitive. How are freaking icons offensive or "forcing" Mr Lazar into a "gender role" again?

This would be like a handicapped person acting indignant that there are no Facebook emoticons featuring wheelchairs. So he refuses to use them at all. Seriously come on.

I thought the gay and lesbian community had WAY bigger issues. But apparently I was wrong.

Or.... as I like to say. Most homosexuals are as boring as anyone else.

I think all the homophobes/bigots are thinking of the stereotype freaky-gay dudes from the gay Parade. Yes, some are that freaky... but its like a party, its dress up... and don't go if you don't want to.

Kudos to you for correcting yourself.You can tell if what you're saying might be perceived as being bigoted if you swap 'homosexual' with 'heterosexual' or 'Chinese People' etc.you could also observe that if the situation were to be reversed, you would think it inappropriate to have your heterosexual relationship status reflected by a picture of two guys. It's not a big deal but it's a gesture which is welcome. More to the point there are religious groups already setting up boycotts like the Oreo example recently.

You also have to bear in mind that without a few militant people nothing would ever change, because nobody ever listens to apathetic people. What's more surprising is that Apple took so long to update the status quo,or do they really think that couples with kids are the ones upgrading their iPhones and iPads every year? Lol

quote: You could also observe that if the situation were to be reversed, you would think it inappropriate to have your heterosexual relationship status reflected by a picture of two guys. It's not a big deal...

It is a big deal. When the icon to represent you doesn't exist it sends the message to society that you don't exist, or that your existence is unworthy of recognition.

The fact is that people are crusading against the recognition (and lives) of gay people right now, and not just in the USA. Most see it as a business opportunity (the "ex-gay" con, gay-baiting/bashing for religious and/or political influence).

quote: You also have to bear in mind that without a few militant people nothing would ever change, because nobody ever listens to apathetic people.

That's true, but casting the man in the article as being "militant" because he expected to be able to exist isn't very accurate.

I can't help but laugh at the term "stable well adjusted homosexuals". It's a contradiction on several levels.

Homosexuality is a disorder. Whether it be a mental/psychological, physical/genetic, environmental or a combination thereof, it is a disorder and disease. I find it interesting that we can define nymphomania as a disorder[among the multitude of other sexual disorders] and pedophilia as a disease having many differing causes, but somehow homosexuality is perfectly normal?

NONSENSE! Total frickin rubbish from a scientific and sociological point of view. Instead of accepting that very flawed ideal, we should be focusing on finding treatments like any other disorder. And if some people simply want to live with it, that is their right, protected by law. But the law DOES NOT say we as a civilization need to allow it as a part of our mainstream thinking.

Now, should homosexuals should be shunned? Heck no. They are human beings deserving to be treated with respect, kindness and dignity. That is how I treat my friends whom subscribe to that lifestyle. And they know how I feel. Some of them even understand and accept that they have a disorder. Hell one of them is pissed at all of this, in his words, "entitlement bullshit".

That's a lie, unless you've just arrived from a time machine set to <1956.

In 1956, Dr. Evelyn Hooker did what no prior researcher had done. She avoided using a polluted sample (men with a history of treatment for mental illness) and instead studied two groups (heterosexual men, homosexual men) with no history of treatment for mental illness. She submitted her work to leading experts. None of them, including her, found any difference between the two stacks of folders.

There was no difference in terms of mental adjustment (sanity) between heterosexual and homosexual men.

So, no, homosexuality isn't a disorder. What needs to be treated, via education, is ignorance.

There's no such thing as a gay person with a level head and who isn't full of emotional problems and serious mental health issues. No such thing. Playing with poop is NOT normal, not know which male/female parts go together is not just stupid, it's a sign of serious mental health issues. It's so obvious, it's just society that's so screwed up that some people have come to accept this as OK and not perverted.

Lesbians have lower STD infection rates than heterosexuals and homosexual men. They have lower HIV infection rates. They have lower AIDS deaths.

Does that mean lesbians are superior people?

Large numbers of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex. Does that mean, again, that lesbians are superior people — since they don't have penises and are less likely to engage in penetrative anal sex?

Here are the facts:

1. Not all gay people and not all hetero people have anal sex.2. People who want to engage in anal sex are not disordered because of that desire.3. Psychology has known since 1956 that homosexuality isn't a disorder.

There is nothing about being gay that makes a gay person more prone to "emotional problems and serious mental health issues" than a heterosexual person. There is, however, one source of emotional stress that could be avoided: ignorance like yours.

People are shocked when they meet my gay friends, not because they're gay, but because they can't believe they're gay. LGBT people are just like anyone else, they only talk about their sexuality when it comes up, it's not like they brag about being gay or talk with a "gay lisp."

No, the idea is that gay people can be invisible because their qualities are indistinguishable from heterosexuals and that that's a good thing. The idea is that gay people who possess qualities that fit the stereotypes, particularly effeminate men, are inferior.

This thinking is commonplace. It's because our culture worships masculinity. We live in a sexist culture and so sexist thinking dominates. Heterosexism is an extension of sexism to a great degree.

I think it's your thinking that is flawed. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have to suddenly act different. A person is who a person is; gay or straight should not affect your behavior outside the bed, as that's the only place -where it even matters-.

People forget they can be sexist or racist to themselves by trying to set themselves apart on purpose, by believing they -must- be different.

I should clarify, the point is you should only be who you are. If that fits into a stereotype, fine. But a person should never go out of their way to change themselves so that they fit a stereotype, because they are straight or because they are gay or because they are purple.

That to me is the greatest offense. The whole idea that you must be different is destructive. Just be a person, you.

There is evidence that gay men tend toward having hybrid characteristics.

One study found that most gay men employ reasoning strategies shown by most heterosexual men and heterosexual women, rather than only employing the strategies typically used by heterosexual men. The study also found that most gay women tend toward typically heterosexual male reasoning strategies.

Another study found that gay men tend to have more feminine finger length patterns, indicating less testosterone exposure in the womb.

Another study found brain differences in which the brains of gay people were more like those of the opposite sex than heterosexual brains typically are.

At the same time, there are some gay men who are very masculine and some gay women who are very feminine. However, the studies point toward most gay people being somewhat hybridized.

Our culture worships masculinity and a great deal of opprobrium against gay men (and lesbians to a lesser, but still significant extent) comes from a sense of outrage over crossing gender lines. Since our culture worships masculinity, effeminacy in males is considered particularly egregious.

The fact that some gay people conform well to our rigid typical heterosexual gender role does not mean it's OK to put those people on a pedestal and look down on those who don't. The "I know gay people who don't fit the stereotypes; they're role models for other gays" thing is exactly that thinking. It's not healthy for anyone, including heterosexual males who feel oppressed by the strictness of the gender role and resort to cross-dressing (usually cross-dressers are especially "masculine" in appearance, demeanor, and occupation).

quote: No, the idea is that gay people can be invisible because their qualities are indistinguishable from heterosexuals and that that's a good thing.

Is the ability to fit in a bad thing in your eyes? If so, why?

quote: The idea is that gay people who possess qualities that fit the stereotypes, particularly effeminate men, are inferior.

Who's idea? I don't see it as being implied by Samus' post that you responded to. I certainly don't think of effeminate men as inferior, gay or not. Then again, I probably wouldn't given that I'm not the paragon of macho-manlyness. Of course, few are.

Conformity has good and bad qualities. Excessive conformity, where the ability of a person's to contribute is impaired, is obviously bad for society. Yet, excessive conformity is generally the rule.

quote: I don't see it as being implied by Samus' post that you responded to.

It is. But, more importantly, our culture believes that. So, debating whether or not a specific poster intended that implication or not isn't nearly as useful as acknowledging the implication and why it's important.

But, a lot of folks would rather hide it because they feel it doesn't apply to them. The fact is that minorities help to enrich culture and policies that are socially corrosive affect the entire culture, not just the obvious targets.

Their "issues" are their thinking that 7 percent of the population acts like they are 90 percent of the population. This is why we weed them out of our company. They can't get through a day without something to do with their twisted sexual orientation. Only two left. Hopefully by Labor Day, we'll be clean. If I wore a "straight and proud" button, I'd be viewed negatively. Meanwhile those twisted f**k's have a parade with naked men running around in front of children. If it was near a school around here, they'd be on the sexual pred list.

quote: "Militant" gay people have every justification to behave the way they do given the high level of bigotry gay people face in our culture and in the world in general.

Perhaps. However, acting like a douche, regardless of how justified it may be, isn't always the best way to achieve your goals. Case in point, Mayor Gavin Newsom's famous "It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

Anyone who is an activist (someone who stands up for themselves) is "acting like a douche" according to the mindset responsible for labeling activism "militant/annoying" behavior.

It's the "don't throw it in our faces" mentality at work. It's the same mentality that demands that gay people remain invisible with statements like "I don't care what you do in the bedroom, but I don't want to hear about it".

For a heterosexist, anything that makes gayness visible is behavior typical of a "douche". Gayness is always irrelevant, unwarranted, and unwanted.

quote: Anyone who is an activist (someone who stands up for themselves) is "acting like a douche" according to the mindset responsible for labeling activism "militant/annoying" behavior.

The key is to get your point across without being perceived as militant / annoying by those whose opinions can be swayed. You may have die-hard opposition to your cause that will always label you as such, but statement's like Newsom's doozy aren't going to sway people that might be on the fence in your direction. On the other hand, the LGBT community's equivalent of an "I Have A Dream" speech very well could get you somewhere.

quote: It's the same mentality that demands that gay people remain invisible with statements like "I don't care what you do in the bedroom, but I don't want to hear about it".

Why do you want to broadcast what you do in the bedroom? I personally don't really want to know what anyone does in the bedroom, gay or straight.

quote: The key is to get your point across without being perceived as militant / annoying by those whose opinions can be swayed. You may have die-hard opposition to your cause that will always label you as such

I've bolded part of your statement because you're starting to get toward the truth of it. It's not about a fair analysis. The whole "militant" thing is an unfair appraisal of activism designed to advocate people not standing up for themselves. It's advocacy for the closet, for invisibility and a lack of civil rights. Unfortunately, the end result are things like gay teen suicide. That's not hyperbole. If a society teaches you that you're so bad that you can't even be recognized, that's very hard on people, especially young people.

quote: Why do you want to broadcast what you do in the bedroom? I personally don't really want to know what anyone does in the bedroom, gay or straight.

You're taking it literally, like when people say things like "love the sinner, hate the sin". Gay people aren't literally going around wanting to tell everyone the details of what they do in the bedroom. Sheesh.

One of the tactics of the right-wing is to pretend that homosexuality isn't a sexual orientation and is instead nothing more than sexual behavior (sex acts): the bedroom. When a heterosexual person talks about their kids and has a picture of their wife on their desk, are they trying to force everyone into a long conversation about their sexual practices in the bedroom?

There is a theory in Communications that says that there is an ideological spectrum people are positioned on. If someone encounters information that runs contrary to their position on the spectrum (from the other side), the person is less likely to consider the information fairly.

So, applying cartoon elements to useful information in an attempt to ignore it clearly appears to be an example of this limitation in human cognition.

I think it's pretty clear that you're one of the people that the vast majority of the population doesn't like. You're just annoying.

You defend all the actions that nearly everyone hates. Everyone knows that there are some really annoying pests out there. From reading your posts in this thread I can say with near certainty that you're one of them.

This really has nothing to do with bigotry, activism, gayness, or anything like that. It has to do with good old fashioned pestering. Nobody likes a pest.